2007-07-28 01:40:10 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Sociology
They'd lose many of their businesses. Wealthy people own food industries and real estate and free food and shelter would seriously dent their incomes.
2007-07-28 06:00:51 · answer #1 · answered by tercentenary98 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The wealthy will have better shelter and gourmet food while the lower economic classes will have minimal housing and enough food to get by. Academia will continue to provide the educational means by which the creative, motivated and ambitious will provide more than mere subsistence living for themselves.
2007-07-28 09:56:54 · answer #2 · answered by jack of all trades 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To achieve a true postscarcity society, i.e. to undermine the fundamental basis of a stratified society, would need more than a universally high standard of living. It would need free energy and practically infinite automated production capacity. As long as resources are finite and require energy and human labor to acquire and turn into goods some people will have more control over the resources and hence more power.
In other words, not much.
2007-07-28 22:44:37 · answer #3 · answered by Somes J 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They would continue to prosper. Food and shelter aren't the source of wealth you suspect. Academia would continue to provide the means necessary to increase ones ability to earn and improve.
2007-07-28 08:53:43 · answer #4 · answered by yeochief2002 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is an underlying agenda to your question I can't quite figure out..........The productive members of society who achieve wealth as a result of their efforts and accomplishments, would remain so...I do not have a clue as to what you are implying about "Academia". The whole tone of your question appear s to have an anti-capitalist bent to it. Why don't you submit another question clearly stating what you are vaguely implying here, so I can properly decimate it!
2007-07-28 08:54:58 · answer #5 · answered by heavymetalrick 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Free does not exsist if something is free to you someone is paying for it. Like welfare it is free to those you are on it because the working society is paying for it with their taxes. So if everyone had free food and shelter taxes whould be much higher and this country would probably be communist.
2007-07-28 13:52:49 · answer #6 · answered by nickieandsarahsmommy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NOTHING is free, laddie. If you don't have to pay for it yourself, somebody else does...or we all do, through our taxes and our charitable donations.
Now, if we set things up governmentally so that our tax dollars provided for everyone's education and healthcare equally (and WELL...that's important...it has to be of the highest quality), the gap between rich and poor in America would probably not be as great as it is. The cream still rises...the smart, creative, ambitious people would still be smart, creative and ambitious. The slackers would still be slackers. But we wouldn't have any excuses, either.
2007-07-28 08:50:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
They would become richer.
2007-07-28 12:43:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
they will get richer. $$ to spend on other luxuries and obsessions.
2007-07-28 09:06:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋